Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
proflie-avatar
Login
exit_to_app
Democracy that banks on the electorate
access_time 28 March 2024 5:34 AM GMT
Lessons to learn from Moscow terror attack
access_time 27 March 2024 6:10 AM GMT
Gaza
access_time 26 March 2024 4:34 AM GMT
The poison is not in words, but inside
access_time 25 March 2024 5:42 AM GMT
A witchhunt, plain and simple
access_time 23 March 2024 9:35 AM GMT
DEEP READ
Schools breeding hatred
access_time 14 Sep 2023 10:37 AM GMT
Ukraine
access_time 16 Aug 2023 5:46 AM GMT
Ramadan: Its essence and lessons
access_time 13 March 2024 9:24 AM GMT
When ‘Jai Sree Ram’ becomes a death call
access_time 15 Feb 2024 9:54 AM GMT
exit_to_app
Homechevron_rightKeralachevron_rightHC stays vigilance...

HC stays vigilance court order on elevation of Shanker Reddy IPS

text_fields
bookmark_border
HC stays vigilance court order on elevation of Shanker Reddy IPS
cancel

Kochi: The High Court Wednesday stayed the proceedings in a vigilance court against the previous UDF government's decision to promote IPS officer N Shanker Reddy to DGP rank and appoint him as the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau.

Justice P Ubaid granted the stay while considering a petition by Congress leader Ramesh Chennithala, who was the then Home Minister when the appointment was made, challenging the 'quick verification' ordered by the vigilance court in Thiruvananthapuram.

Chennithala, who is at present the Leader of the Opposition in the assembly, has submitted that granting of promotion to the officer was legal and the state government had the authority to do so.

In the previous hearing, the high court had rapped the VACB and directed it to "explain" its authority to "comment on or direct" the government to review its administrative decisions and actions.

Considering another case filed by former finance minister K M Mani, seeking to quash a vigilance probe into bar bribery case, the high court criticised the 'inefficiency and irresponsibility' of the officer who filed two statements regarding the investigation in the court.

In the last hearing, the court had directed the VACB to file a proper statement with definite fact regarding the investigation.

When the matter came up today, a new special prosecutor filed one statement, and the state prosecutor filed another statement.

The court asked whether its consent was obtained for appointment of special prosecutor in the case.

It then directed that the government should have a definite stand as to who should prosecute the case and adjourned the matter to March 27.

Show Full Article
Next Story